How one man rigged the British electoral system

We started East Anglia Bylines in 2021, because we were concerned about the underrepresentation of progressive views in the mainstream media (and with more than a nod to ‘Bregret’). We were worried about the state of our democracy: about how easy it is for misinformation and corruption to infiltrate our government and for malign actors to lie, and manipulate public opinion. We have now published 1500 articles, and to mark the occasion, we thought we would return to one of those issues: our strange electoral system.

This is particularly apt at a time when some commentators think we are seeing the actual demise of the Conservative Party, whose dominance of our politics for over a century has been sustained by the electoral system they created.

The Cecil family legacy

Picture of Hatfield House — Hatfield House, ancestral seat of the Cecil family. Image by Christine Matthews via Geograph (CC BY SA 2.0)

Last year we published a popular story about the continuing influence of the Cecil family on our government. Four hundred years ago, William Cecil became a close adviser to Elizabeth I. We highlighted how, from their base in Hatfield House, his descendents have been at, or close to, the centre of British political life ever since, sometimes as ministers or prime ministers, sometimes behind the scenes.

One aspect we did not explore was their role in shaping our current electoral system. But it is largely thanks to Robert Gascoyne Cecil (3rd Marquess of Salisbury) that we have our current electoral arrangements, which have given us a century of Conservative dominance.

First past the post

For some time, dissatisfaction has been growing with our present ‘first past the post’ (FPTP) , or ‘winner takes all’ electoral system. Organisations like the Electoral Reform Society point out its many flaws. As they say, “it makes everything black and white… Every issue becomes a stick to defeat an opponent, rather than something to be solved to the advantage of all.”

The arguments for a more proportional model have been widely aired and have been finding increased public support, though not much enthusiasm from the main parties. However desirable it may seem, it needs a particular kind of bravery to abolish the system which put you in power.

We know that FPTP elections allow a party with only 25% of the vote to win a large parliamentary majority. As a result, politicians only need to attend to the concerns of a small minority of marginal constituencies. In the rest, the ‘safe seats’, voters can be taken for granted.

An overruled majority

No governing party in living memory has ever won even half the votes cast. In every election since 1945 a majority of people have voted for parties to the left of the Conservatives. But the Conservatives have been in power for more than two-thirds of that time. So most voters are represented by an MP who does not share their political views.

First past the post makes it almost impossible for new parties to challenge the two leading ones. So, both those parties are in reality broad coalitions. Much real political debate happens behind the scenes, inside the main parties, out of sight or influence of voters. This may help explain the steady fall in election turnout, as trust declines and people give up on democracy itself.

There are few developed countries with first past the post systems. The exceptions are the UK, the USA, and Belarus. If you were starting with a blank slate, it is not obvious that you would want to emulate any of those.

‘Minorities not to be represented‘

We were not always governed like this. Until the mid-19th century constituencies were large and the number of MPs in each varied (sometimes three, but usually two). From today’s perspective, it hardly looks like a democracy. The vote was restricted to property-owning men, and working men in urban areas. Women and working men in rural areas were excluded. And the rapid growth of cities had led to huge differences in constituency size.

William Gladstone, the Liberal Prime Minister, wanted to extend the franchise to rural working men. But Conservatives, led by Lord Salisbury, blocked the plans, afraid of losing control of their rural strongholds. After the Queen pressed Gladstone to find a resolution, agreement was reached (in talks at the London residence of Lord Salisbury).

Salisbury’s early writings on the electoral system reveal that he knew that if the franchise was extended in the existing large, socially mixed, multi-member constituencies, it would be easier for new parties to emerge and challenge the two established ones. So in the negotiations with the Liberals, he insisted that the number of constituencies should double, their size should halve, and each should have a single MP.

So, the Boundary Commissions were required, as far as possible, to separate rural and urban areas into different constituencies, with “special regard to the pursuits of the population”. That is, to create constituencies which were mainly dominated by a single social class. This suited both Liberals and Conservatives. As Salisbury wrote on the cover of Gladstone’s copy of the agreement:

Minorities not to be directly represented…..[this] will be considered by the Government as vital – and the Government will resist as [a] vital question the insertion in the Bill of any provision inconsistent with the above.

This was a system designed to ensure that parliament would always be dominated by one of the two established parties. Even if a third party should emerge, either Liberals or Conservatives would still win with a minority of the votes cast. They just needed the largest minority in a majority of constituencies.

The legacy

The agreements passed into law in 1884/5. And having thus secured the two-party system, the Conservatives began to build support among the aspiring middle classes in the emerging suburban constituencies. Those voters have remained the backbone of the party ever since.

The reforms consolidated the dominance of the two parties. Should a new party try to emerge, it could only do so by adopting ‘moderate’ policies which could attract supporters from one of the main parties, thus preventing radical change.

Buoyed by his electoral strategy, Salisbury then became Prime Minister, for two seven-year terms, interrupted only by two years of Liberal control. When he retired, he kept the government in the family, handing over the post to his own nephew, Arthur Balfour (the origin of the saying ‘Bob’s your uncle’).

Downfall?

Salisbury’s ‘first past the post’ system had some merits. It ensured relatively stable government by making it easier to achieve a clear parliamentary majority, and it encouraged what we might now call ‘centrism’, blocking revolutionary change. Whether these merits outweigh its disadvantages is a matter of opinion.

By regularly securing the largest minority vote, the Conservatives have dominated British government ever since Salisbury’s reforms. To describe them as ‘the natural party of government’ is merely a statement of historical fact.

But they now appear to be abandoning the centrist advantage which their founding grandee bequeathed them. Scandal, negligence and extremism in the party has dominated the headlines. And the polls now suggest that, by abandoning the centre, they are experiencing a major collapse in support. Whether they lose it permanently to another party, or find a way to once again weaponise Salisbury’s legacy, remains to be seen.

What is fairly certain is that, while we retain FPTP, a second party will inevitably emerge and restore two party ‘balance’. We will be watching to see whether a Labour government will grasp the nettle of electoral reform, or will just seek to make capital out of the temporary advantage that FPTP gives them.

Acknowledgements to Michael Bursill, who explored the Salisbury reforms in Chartist Magazine on International Day of Democracy in 2023.